Check Your Christian Liberty

Image

“Christian liberty.”

What does that bring to your mind? Perhaps you’re thinking of those Facebook debates over the Christian’s use of alcohol or arguments over personal standards. Perhaps it conjures bitter memories of judgmental Christians and legalistic churches.

What if, when we thought of Christian liberty, it brought to mind ideas such as “love,” “God’s glory,” and “service”?

Sadly, this isn’t typically how we frame the topic of Christian liberty—but it’s exactly how the Bible frames it. I fear that, in our discussion regarding Christian liberty, we jump straight to the application and ignore the overarching biblical principles that are designed to govern and regulate our exercise our Christian liberty.

First of all, what is Christian liberty? It is the reality that, because of Christ’s obedient life and sacrificial death, we are no longer bound by the Legal demands of the Mosaic law. Christ fulfilled the law and has brought us in union with Him. Now, we serve the law of Christ, the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25). Christian liberty is, without a doubt, a wonderful truth.

But Christian liberty has some qualifications. New Testament passages about Christian liberty come with both a warning label and an instruction label: Peter warns we must be careful not to use our Christian liberty “as a cover-up for evil,” but rather as “living as servants of God” (1 Pet 2:16). Paul warns that we should never use our freedom “as an opportunity for the flesh,” but rather as an opportunity to lovingly “serve one another” (Gal 5:13). In short, if you’re using your Christian liberty for your own benefit and not the benefit of others, you are abusing your liberty. You’re ignoring both the warning and the instruction.

Scripture not only describes Christian liberty as an opportunity for service, but also as an opportunity for gospel witness. In 1 Cor. 9:8-23, Paul rejoiced in his Christian liberty because it gave him the opportunity to give up certain rights that are prescribed “in the Law of Moses” (v. 8) in order to more effectively share the gospel. Paul says, “though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them” (v. 19).

Finally, my Christian liberty must be exercised out of a commitment to God’s glory. Romans 14 states that, no matter what conclusions we come to regarding areas of Christian liberty, we must do so “in honor of the Lord.” My Christian liberty is not for my own sake, it is for the sake of the One who both freed me and bought me.

My Christian liberty must be governed and controlled by my love for God, His gospel and His people. Without these, my exercise of Christian liberty will be governed by only one thing: my love of self—which will inevitably result in using my Christian liberty for “an opportunity for the flesh” and “a cover-up for evil.”

Why is it, then, that most of our discussions about Christian liberty are not governed by a love for God, His gospel and His people? Too often, we ask, “What does my liberty let me do?” instead of asking, “What does my liberty let me forfeit?” We are fueled by nothing more than a desire to enjoy some particular activity without being judged by others.

Now, to be sure, because we have Christian liberty, we are commanded not to “pass judgment” on others in regards to amoral, non-scriptural issues, neither are we to allow others to pass judgment on us (Col 2:16). It is indeed the tendency of sinful humans to “pass judgment” on those with the looser standards and to “despise” those with the stricter standards (Rom 14:3). The reality of our freedom in Christ demands that we treat one another with grace and peace.

But if I reduce my Christian liberty to mindset that says, “I have the freedom to enjoy this, so stop judging me and mind your own business,” we are dangerously close to abusing that liberty, if we aren’t abusing it already.

By writing this, I’m not trying to poke at any particular “hot-button” issue of Christian liberty. I just want to make a simple point: If I don’t prioritize God’s glory over my own, if I do not value His gospel above my agenda, and if I do not consider the growth of the church as more important than my own personal happiness, then I cannot trust my own conclusions regarding areas of Christian liberty. If my thought process never moves beyond, “The Bible never says I can’t,” then I haven’t matured enough in my Christian walk.

Instead, we must always be thinking,

  • “Which decision would most honor my Lord?”
  • “Which decision would remove barriers to the gospel?”
  • “Which decision will edify and strengthen my brothers and sisters in Christ?”

Are you asking these questions when you determine your personal convictions regarding the “hot-button” issues of our day?

A heart of love must come before a celebration of liberty. Christian liberty is not an invitation to “chill out and stop being so uptight about stuff.” It is not an invitation to make your life more fun and enjoyable. It is not an invitation to “stick it” to your legalistic upbringing. It is an invitation to use your freedom for the glory of God, the good of others, and the growth of His church. And if that doesn’t sit right with you, ask you yourself why.

Reposted, with permission, from Pursuing the Pursuer.

Discussion

I don’t see much difference between “uncertain” and “we don’t know for sure so we live by our conscience” :)

There’s no difference in that. The difference is in what comes before it. When says “X [item, thing, practice] is morally uncertain” you are speaking of a thing. That is different than saying “I am am uncertain as to its morality.” The thing is either pleasing or not. To call it uncertain is at best unclear. Now to say that I am uncertain is far more accurate.

When you say, ” So, if I were to stick with the “amoral” label, I would be referring to the thing itself,” that is exactly my objection. On what basis do we declare that God has no view of a thing itself? Where does this third category come from? God declared everything good and then some of it has been distorted to evil. It God has said it is good, how then we do say is “neutral”?

It’s pretty clear that Paul is saying there is no inherent morality in Food.

I don’t think it is clear at all that that is what Paul is saying. Wasn’t food something God created before he declared everything to be “very good”? That’s what I don’t get. How can you take something God has declared to be “very good” and downgrade it to “morally neutral”?

[Aaron Berry]

One note concerning things that are “amoral”: Scripture indicates at least one “amoral” thing in 1 Cor 8:8 “Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and not better off if we do.” It’s pretty clear that Paul is saying there is no inherent morality in Food. Now, someone would be sinning if they are eating in violation of their conscience, but that does not attach inherent morality to the food. So, if I were to stick with the “amoral” label, I would be referring to the thing itself, and not the potential moral/immoral ways in which human beings can partake of that which is inherently “amoral.”

No, Aaron, Scripture does not indicate that “there is no inherent morality in food.” God created it as good, and it is still good:
1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Paul is not saying that food is “amoral” or “neutral.”

[Larry] On what basis do we declare that God has no view of a thing itself? Where does this third category come from? God declared everything good and then some of it has been distorted to evil. It God has said it is good, how then we do say is “neutral”?
I like the definition of adiaphora above, in which “neutral” was defined as “things that are neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture.” The color of carpet was given as an example in the definition. No particular color is commanded or forbidden. Carpet itself is not commanded or forbidden. Are there any Scriptural reasons to think carpet itself is pleasing or displeasing to God? I can think, perhaps, of a situation in which the use of carpet might be displeasing. If I was a missionary serving in a very, very poor community where everyone had dirt floors, and I decided to use donation money to carpet our meeting place, that might be a displeasing use of carpet, (or it might just be a displeasing use of donated money), but even if God is displeased with that use of carpet, does that mean God gets displeased with the carpet itself? I really don’t understand why we would assign God’s pleasure or displeasure to an inanimate object like carpet, so i have no problem saying God has no view of the thing.

I believe we might be making a false equivalency between “good” and “moral.” If something is inherently “moral,” then some would be practicing righteousness by partaking in it. Conversely, if something is inherently “immoral,” someone would be practicing sin by partaking in it. Yes, food is a good gift of God. That doesn’t make food inherently moral. As Paul said in 1 Cor, we’re no better off if we eat food or don’t eat food. If food were inherently moral, then we would, in fact, be “better off” by eating!

But, I fear that this discussion is swiftly drifting away from my intent of the article, but I appreciate the interesting feedback! May we all continue to live our lives out of love for God, his Gospel, and his people.

[Aaron Berry]

But, I fear that this discussion is swiftly drifting away from my intent of the article, but I appreciate the interesting feedback! May we all continue to live our lives out of love for God, his Gospel, and his people.

I understand, Aaron. Because I think that continuing this discussion is important, I have started a new thread so that anyone who wants to continue the discussion can do so in that thread. Thanks.